Prevalence and determinants of shared decision-making for PSA testing in the United States

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Naeem Bhojani, Larry E. Miller, Kevin C. Zorn, Bilal Chughtai, Dean S. Elterman, Samir Bhattacharyya, Ben H. Chew
{"title":"Prevalence and determinants of shared decision-making for PSA testing in the United States","authors":"Naeem Bhojani, Larry E. Miller, Kevin C. Zorn, Bilal Chughtai, Dean S. Elterman, Samir Bhattacharyya, Ben H. Chew","doi":"10.1038/s41391-024-00843-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing but appears underutilized. This population-based study assessed the prevalence and determinants of SDM for PSA testing among US men.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We assessed PSA testing rates and SDM engagement in men aged 40 and older without prostate cancer history using the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. SDM was defined as discussing the advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing with a physician. We used multivariable logistic regression with machine learning to identify factors associated with lack of SDM.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Among 9723 eligible participants (mean age 58 years), lifetime PSA testing prevalence was 45.9% and the 1-year testing incidence was 29.1%. Only 24.1% reported engaging in SDM with a physician, while 62.9% never discussed PSA testing. Younger age and lower education levels were the primary determinants of decreased SDM engagement. Men with less education engaged in SDM less than half as often as those with higher education levels across all age groups.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>Societal guidelines recommend SDM for PSA testing. However, most men, regardless of age, have never engaged in SDM conversations with a healthcare provider about PSA testing, especially those with less education. More efforts are needed to improve patient-provider conversations about the potential benefits and harms of PSA testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":20727,"journal":{"name":"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00843-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing but appears underutilized. This population-based study assessed the prevalence and determinants of SDM for PSA testing among US men.

Methods

We assessed PSA testing rates and SDM engagement in men aged 40 and older without prostate cancer history using the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. SDM was defined as discussing the advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing with a physician. We used multivariable logistic regression with machine learning to identify factors associated with lack of SDM.

Results

Among 9723 eligible participants (mean age 58 years), lifetime PSA testing prevalence was 45.9% and the 1-year testing incidence was 29.1%. Only 24.1% reported engaging in SDM with a physician, while 62.9% never discussed PSA testing. Younger age and lower education levels were the primary determinants of decreased SDM engagement. Men with less education engaged in SDM less than half as often as those with higher education levels across all age groups.

Conclusions

Societal guidelines recommend SDM for PSA testing. However, most men, regardless of age, have never engaged in SDM conversations with a healthcare provider about PSA testing, especially those with less education. More efforts are needed to improve patient-provider conversations about the potential benefits and harms of PSA testing.

Abstract Image

美国 PSA 检测共同决策的普遍性和决定因素
背景共享决策(SDM)被推荐用于前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)检测,但似乎未得到充分利用。这项基于人群的研究评估了美国男性进行 PSA 检测的 SDM 的流行率和决定因素。方法我们利用 2019 年全国健康访谈调查评估了 40 岁及以上无前列腺癌病史男性的 PSA 检测率和 SDM 参与情况。SDM 的定义是与医生讨论 PSA 检测的利弊。结果在 9723 名符合条件的参与者(平均年龄 58 岁)中,PSA 终生检测率为 45.9%,1 年检测率为 29.1%。只有 24.1% 的人表示与医生进行过 SDM,62.9% 的人从未讨论过 PSA 检测。年龄较小和教育水平较低是参与 SDM 减少的主要决定因素。在所有年龄组中,受教育程度较低的男性参与 SDM 的次数不到受教育程度较高男性的一半。然而,大多数男性,无论年龄大小,从未就 PSA 检测与医疗服务提供者进行过 SDM 对话,尤其是受教育程度较低的男性。我们需要做出更多努力,改善患者与医疗服务提供者之间关于 PSA 检测潜在益处和危害的对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
142
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases covers all aspects of prostatic diseases, in particular prostate cancer, the subject of intensive basic and clinical research world-wide. The journal also reports on exciting new developments being made in diagnosis, surgery, radiotherapy, drug discovery and medical management. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases is of interest to surgeons, oncologists and clinicians treating patients and to those involved in research into diseases of the prostate. The journal covers the three main areas - prostate cancer, male LUTS and prostatitis. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases publishes original research articles, reviews, topical comment and critical appraisals of scientific meetings and the latest books. The journal also contains a calendar of forthcoming scientific meetings. The Editors and a distinguished Editorial Board ensure that submitted articles receive fast and efficient attention and are refereed to the highest possible scientific standard. A fast track system is available for topical articles of particular significance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信